The Plausibility of Alien Life

I understood that. Neither are alleged Biblical aliens who allegedly appear and disappear to humans. I'm not implying that angels are matter particles but perhaps have some similar properties. My understanding is that we don't know what encounters of anti-matter particles (abe: do) to matter particles except that it makes (abe: both of) them invisible to humans/disappear. Where am I going wrong? Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hello Buz,We do know what happens when matter and antimatter meet: they annihilate one another and are completely converted to energy according to Einstein's famous formula E=mc².

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I'm not saying that it might not be possible in the far future. We truly don't know. Just that there often seems to be too much confidence in the idea that our technological abilities will keep following the same steep curve of the last 500 years. It may just be that we have picked the low hanging fruit thus far, and that things will get exponentially more difficult, soon.The exponent of this attitude is, for example, all this talk about "how a Type III civilization will have the capabilities to warp space with negative energy, and thus travel faster than light" and stuff like that, you know the sort. The kind of discourse that seems to forget that maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to first consider the feasibility of a Type III civilization (one that can exploit the energy of an entire galaxy, if I remember correctly) itself, lol. It's not because we can dream away about some cool concept, that this concept somehow earns the right to be realistic and within reach!Anyways, that's the feeling that I often get from speculations like these...

What is visible to humans? What you call world is in fact probability waves spread throughout the universe, that because of interactions(measurement/observation) turn to localised matter particle-like entities(and one of the main reasons why i can't believe there is a world out there is because these waves they have electric charge and mass throughout space; this is unreal). Anyway, so what is visible? Is a virus visible? If our Sun hits a black hole, it will disappear. Why should we expect that matter behaves the way we want it?There is a giant black hole(about 30 000 000 times the mass of our Sun) at the centre of the adjascent Andromeda Galaxy. Theory says, because our galaxies are in a collision course, that in 2 billion years the whole Milky Way can be swallowed by this giant black hole. And the matter of our whole galaxy might become something the size of an atom. Mind-boggling? Yes, if you keep to your notions of hard to touch real, solid matter. But matter is really energy and obviously immense gravity can overcome the electromagnetism, the coloumb force and even the strong force between charges.

This is incorrect.There is: http://www.designnews.com/...sion_a_Future_Power_Source_.phpThis rest of your points do not match the evidence.ABE: Ninja'dEdited by Larni, : No reason given.

You are correct, but i think by "disappearing" he meant disappearing from sight, the whole quote by Buz was: Buz is right that matter would disappear(from human sight), but it is known(as you said) that energy is conserved and that it merely changes forms.

It looks like light can travel faster than light. That statement is non-sensical but probably we have a wrong understanding of the speed of light or there is some effect at play I or possibly we are not familiar with. There is at least one example where light would have to travel faster than we think it does through space. Or maybe it's because we always live in the past.

quote:

---

I was wondering when someone would get around to alien life that was not humanoid. I agree that it would be more likely to find "non-intelligent life" considering that the planet would not have to be able to sustain more advanced forms of life.

---

You seem to be equating 'humanoid' and 'intelligent' here. If we do ever come across an alien civillisation, I'd think it staggeringly unlikely that they'd have a similar body plan to us. There's no reason humanoid features should be a necessary prerequisite of technological society. All that would be required is a big brain (or analogous structure) and the ability to manipulate your surroundings. Why couldn't alien civillisations be incredibly intelligent squidoids or, more likely, alienoids not particularly reminiscent of any earth species?

How can the maximum speed of light be faster than the maximum speed of light?Edited by Larni, : Forgot the ?

What is the mass of a photon?

The last time I checked it was 0

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

It's fairly common knowledge that photons don't have rest mass. What's your point?

That's what i want to know as well. Well see, i'll try to keep it short(i don't like long posts anyway).Imagine you are carrying in your hands a very powerful laser torch. A laser torch so powerful that it could send a beam of visible light to Mars. You switch on your laser torch and you point it towards the sky and hold it steady. After a minute, the light will reach Mars. You look through your 2000x magnifying telescope and see that the beam has hit Mars. Then you sweep your hand and the ray goes all the way to the other end of the horizon. What happens with the ray? It follows your hand and because light travels only in straight line, the light that shone Mars will have to move FTL to the other end of the horizon, which might be pointing to Jupiter for example. If it doesn't, then light will have to bend which is impossible as far as we know.I can give you other examples but this is offtopic and i don't want to rack the mods.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I just wondered why you replied to Rrhain, who pointed out that no object with mass can exceed the speed of light, with an example of something without mass exceeding the speed of light. I was hoping you might explain why you thought it was relevant to Rrhain's post...were you just randomly posting physics news or were you participating in some kind of debate?If your point raised in Message 58 was what you were driving at, you might also want to check out this which discusses a similar setup. Then maybe start a new thread if you think it has some interesting discussion avenues to explore.

It was not an objection to anything he said, it was more like an addition to his statement which was correct. If there is interest in discussing this and related issues, i will start a new thread.Thanks for the link although it doesn't explain very well what is actually happening. But i found this link which is even more mind-boggling:Light Travels Backward and Faster than Light | Live ScienceEdited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.